For this reason, much of the disputation engaged in by speculative theologians consists merely in demonstrating the invalidity (1) of their opponents’ positions and exposing their contradictions. This is because both positions may be false. Thus, (2) neither side can defend its own position without qualification, so it instead demonstrates the invalidity of its opponent’s position. This approach is needed when an adherent (3) thinks highly of his position and has built it upon premises that he believes to be sound. If one begins by trying to establish for him the negation of those premises, he will not accept it, the truth will not become clear (4), and the dispute will drag on, as it has among the speculative theologians.

The proper course in such a case (5) is to demonstrate to him the superiority of another position over his own, or the invalidity (6) of his position on the basis of those premises and others. Once he sees the contradiction in his position or the superiority of [another’s] position over his own (7), he will then desire to know what is correct and where the error lies. It will then become clear to him (8) that the premises upon which he built his position are false, that their opposites are sound, and precisely how the error arose.

The same applies when debating an eternalist (9), a Jew, a Christian, or a Rāfidī,